logo
Mentzelopoulos denies defaming Alberta premier's former chief of staff in court filing

Mentzelopoulos denies defaming Alberta premier's former chief of staff in court filing

Yahoo6 days ago
Lawyers representing the former head of Alberta Health Services (AHS) Athana Mentzelopoulos are denying claims of defamation by Premier Danielle Smith's former chief of staff and call for his lawsuit to be dismissed in recently-filed court documents.
Marshall Smith, who is unrelated to the premier, filed a $12-million lawsuit in May against Mentzelopoulos, the Globe and Mail newspaper along with one of its reporters, and another person whose identity is unknown to him but believed to be a former AHS board member.
Smith alleges statements in Mentzelopoulos's $1.7-million wrongful dismissal suit, along with further court filings and subsequent media reporting, defamed him and resulted in emotional distress, stress, depression, anxiety, embarrassment, loss of reputation, humiliation and an inability to secure work in his chosen profession.
Mentzelopoulos's lawyers filed a statement of defence in Court of King's Bench in Edmonton last Wednesday that denies Smith's claims in their entirety.
'Mentzelopoulos denies each and every allegation set forth in the plaintiff Marshall Smith's statement of claim,' it states.
'He is not entitled to any damages or any relief whatsoever from Ms. Mentzelopoulos. Ms. Mentzelopoulos did not defame Mr. Smith and did not cause him loss or damages.'
Her lawyers further argue that allegations contained in her court filings are protected by legal privilege and therefore are immune from legal attack.
'Ms. Mentzelopoulos has an entitlement to state the facts that gave rise to her current circumstances.'
The statement also denies Smith suffered any damages as a result of Mentzelopoulos, and even if that were the case, 'the damages claimed are grossly excessive, exaggerated, and not warranted in the circumstances.'
It goes on to refute 13 specific allegations Smith makes in his statement of claim, and seeks to have his lawsuit against her dismissed with costs.
'Her statements in the pleadings in her action are statements of fact, they were true or substantially true in substance and fact, and, to the extent any of her statements are statements of opinion, they constituted fair comment,' her statement reads.
She also claims to have no knowledge of the individual Smith purports to be a former AHS board member who he also believes to have defamed him.
Smith left his role as the premier's chief of staff on Oct. 31, 2024, after just over two years in the position.
None of his or Mentzelopoulos's claims have yet been tested in court.
Mentzelopoulos took on the role of CEO of AHS on Dec. 7, 2023, and was fired on Jan. 8, 2025.
She alleges in her own lawsuit that she was improperly fired by then-deputy minister of health and AHS board member Andre Tremblay at the behest of then-health minister Adriana LaGrange, but that both lacked the authority to do so.
Mentzelopoulos has sought a summary judgment whereby a judge would rule on the legality of her firing in an effort to produce an expedited resolution that would also keep the matter from going to trial.
The government told Postmedia last month that it plans to 'vigorously' oppose Mentzelopoulos's application, calling it legally baseless and claiming it includes a litany of misinformation and false claims.
mblack@postmedia.com
Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don't miss the news you need to know — add EdmontonJournal.com and EdmontonSun.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.
You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribers gain unlimited access to The Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Edmonton Journal | The Edmonton Sun.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Alberta gov't fell short of its affordable housing goal last year: annual report
Alberta gov't fell short of its affordable housing goal last year: annual report

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Alberta gov't fell short of its affordable housing goal last year: annual report

The provincial government completed fewer new or refurbished affordable housing units last year than the previous three years, according to figures in the Seniors, Community and Social Services Ministry's annual report. Provincial funding contributed to the creation of 388 new units in fiscal 2024, while another 410 households received rent supplements — payments that help people pay rent in market-housing units, the annual report says. But the combined number of 798 units and subsidies fell short of the ministry's target of 1,500 for the year, the report says "The provincial government has been failing at creating more affordable housing, particularly for low-income people," said Carolyn Whitzman, a senior housing researcher at the University of Toronto's School of Cities. Last year, the Alberta government created 641 affordable housing units — through new builds and refurbishments — and allocated 1,661 rent supplements. In the 2021 Stronger Foundations report, the province's 10-year strategy for affordable housing, the government set a goal to expand the capacity of its affordable housing system, so it could support 25,000 more households by 2032. That figure combines new builds, renovations to existing units and rent subsidies. During a media availability Friday, Assisted Living and Social Services Minister Jason Nixon told reporters that the provincial government is on track to reach its goal. He said providing rent supplements for existing market housing is part of the plan. "Rent supplement units are new units," Nixon said. "Taking a unit on, that would be in the open market, and creating a rent supplement for that unit creates an affordable unit that would not have been affordable before this." The annual report said an additional 1,626 units were under construction as of March 31. Nixon's press secretary, Amber Edgerton, said in a written statement that the figure in the annual report shows the projects completed within a fiscal year, and that most affordable housing projects are currently being built. "Construction of affordable housing doesn't happen in a fiscal year — these are long-term projects that will benefit Albertans for decades to come," she wrote. On Friday, Nixon and Eleanor Olszewski, the federal minister of emergency management and community resilience and MP for Edmonton Centre, announced that the federal and provincial governments will spend $203 million combined to build 2,300 affordable housing units across Alberta. The provincial government has spent $386 million through its Affordable Housing Partnership Program since 2022, and plans to spend another $655 million over the next three years. Provinces could do better Whitzman, the U of T researcher, sees problems with Alberta's use of subsidies to help make market housing more affordable. The payments, she said, don't always make up the difference between the rent charged for a unit and what a lower-income tenant can afford. Rent subsidies also keep tenants in the private market, which may not provide the same kind of rent stability as a unit in a community-housing or non-market unit., she said. Nixon rejects calls for Alberta to implement rent control while the province builds out its affordable housing supply. He argues rent caps provide a disincentive to developers who build new apartment and homes. Whitzman said that isn't the case in jurisdictions like Quebec, which has rent control. No provincial government is doing a great job building affordable housing, Whitzman said, but Alberta is failing on several fronts. She said Alberta has a growing rate of evictions, and that the government needs to improve benefits so people can afford to live. The Alberta government can also change the building code and provide guidance to municipalities on how they can change zoning bylaws to allow more apartment buildings, she said. Calgary, and particularly Edmonton, are doing well with zoning changes, but only because they did so on their own, Whitzman added. Opposition NDP housing critic Janis Irwin, the MLA for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood, said she isn't surprised the government fell short of its affordable-housing goals. Nixon often cites increases in market housing starts as proof Alberta is building more housing, which in turn will make more apartments available as tenants move into new homes. But Irwin argues the UCP government needs to spend more on new non-market housing, and reiterated a call to institute a rent cap. She said Nixon could spend more on new affordable housing builds, noting the government ended the 2024-25 year with a $8.2 billion surplus. "They could be using that money to invest in new affordable housing. They could be upgrading the affordable housing that we know is in disrepair," Irwin said. "We know that investments in housing will will pay dividends down the road. These should be viewed as investments and not expenses."

How to fix Canadians' unfairly high tax burdens under progressive rates
How to fix Canadians' unfairly high tax burdens under progressive rates

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

How to fix Canadians' unfairly high tax burdens under progressive rates

If you think tax rates are too high, now is your chance to share your views with the government as it prepares its 2025 fall federal budget. This week, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, François-Philippe Champagne, launched the government's annual pre-budget consultations, giving Canadians until Aug. 28 to share their thoughts on a variety of key issues directly with the government online, via email or through written submissions. In a media release, the government noted that part of the consultations will focus on bringing down costs for Canadians, building on its recent 'middle-class tax cut,' which saw the lowest federal tax bracket drop to 14.5 per cent (from 15 per cent) as of July 1, with a further cut to 14 per cent scheduled for Jan. 1, 2026. While Canadians of all income levels will benefit from the rate cut to the lowest bracket, such a cut further magnifies the extreme progressivity inherent in our tax rate structure. Let's take a closer look at tax progressivity and what steps the government might consider to reduce the impact of such progressivity on certain taxpayers. As a refresher, we have five federal tax brackets in 2025: zero to $57,375 of income (14.5 per cent); above $57,375 to $114,750 (20.5 per cent); above $114,750 to $177,882 (26 per cent); above $177,882 to $253,414 (29 per cent), with anything above that taxed at 33 per cent. Each province and territory also has its own set of provincial tax brackets and rates. For example, an Ontario taxpayer currently pays a zero rate of tax on any income up to the basic exemption of $16,129. For income above that, the combined federal and Ontario marginal rate rises through over a dozen successive income brackets (including two levels of Ontario provincial surtax) until it reaches a top marginal rate of 53.53 per cent with income over $253,414. If we go back 15 years, Ontario's top marginal tax rate was a mere 46.41 per cent, meaning both the degree of progressivity as well as the top marginal rates have since increased sharply. And, this is not just an Ontario problem, as eight out of 10 provinces now have top marginal tax rates over 50 per cent. The other problem with our top rate is that it kicks in way too soon at $253,414. Contrast that with the top federal rate in the United States of 37 per cent, which was just made permanent (rather than reverting back to the 39.6 per cent rate for 2026) by the recent passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), and only starts to apply with income over US$626,350 — equivalent to about $860,000 in Canadian dollars. While there are many arguments for progressivity in the tax system, such as the more you make, the greater your ability to pay, having a tax rate so high can be a disincentive to earn more money since in most of Canada, you can't even keep half of it for yourself. And, while there's a common misperception in Canada that top income earners do not pay their share of taxes, a new report out this week by the Fraser Institute entitled Measuring progressivity in Canada's tax system, 2025, finds that high-income families already pay a disproportionately large share of all Canadian taxes, with the top 20 per cent of income earning families paying nearly two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of the country's personal income taxes. While it seems unlikely our current government will proactively lower the top bracket any time soon, perhaps the government could instead focus on a couple of targeted measures in the area of tax policy that would help reduce the sting of this sharp progressivity. A recent article by Geoffrey Turner, a law professor and tax lawyer with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP in Toronto, entitled Mitigating the inequities of high progressivity: Income averaging and spousal unit taxation, puts forth those two ideas for consideration. Turner maintains that tax reform should focus on alleviating the unfairly high tax burdens that our current progressive rate structure imposes on two specific categories of taxpayers: individuals whose income is irregular over time and families in which spouses or partners earn dissimilar incomes and therefore fall into different tax brackets. Of course, these ideas are not new as they were originally contained in the 1966 Carter Royal Commission Report on Taxation which recognized these inequities and proposed solutions, which were never permanently adopted. But, given the progressivity inherent in today's rates, Turner argues that the time has come to introduce these measures into our tax system. Let's start with income averaging. Under our personal income tax system we measure income annually and report it based on the calendar year. As a result of this 'convenient but arbitrary time frame,' taxable income is measured discretely each year, without reference to taxable income in prior or subsequent years. This means taxpayers with 'lumpy' income, who experience high income in one year but low income the following year, end up paying unfair amounts of tax in those high-income years relative to their actual ability, over time, to pay. The Carter commission recommended addressing this problem by allowing income averaging, which we did have in some form or other in Canada until 1988. The other recommendation proposed by Turner was to change the taxing unit from the individual to the couple. The Carter commission concluded that a better measure of ability to pay is the consolidated income of families because they constitute the basic economic grouping in Canadian society. Although the family unit was never adopted as part of the 1972 tax reform, family income is used today to income-test various social programs and credits, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, and the GST/HST credit. But notwithstanding this, the individual, rather than the family, remains the basic taxing unit in Canada, despite the fact that family income may better gauge one's ability to pay. Our current system is particularly unfair for families in which one spouse earns most of the income, as that family's tax burden is significantly higher under our progressive rate structure than if that income were evenly divided between each individual in a couple. Rather than force couples to be taxed together, however, Turner is in favour of allowing couples to elect to be taxed as a spousal unit. This would be similar to the elective 'married filing jointly' option available to couples in the U.S. As an added bonus, it would also 'help simplify the complex income-splitting rules, which might be rendered redundant by such a measure,' writes Turner. Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth in Toronto. If you liked this story, in the FP Investor newsletter. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Judge Dismisses Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster And Paramount Global
Judge Dismisses Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster And Paramount Global

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Judge Dismisses Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster And Paramount Global

A federal judge tossed out Donald Trump's lawsuit against Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster and Paramount Global over the legendary investigative journalist's use of his recordings of interviews with the president for an audiobook. In his 2023 lawsuit, Trump had claimed that he had a copyright and contract interest in the audio recordings, interviews which were initially used in Woodward's book Rage, a bombshell that was published in 2020. The audiobook, The Trump Tapes, was released in 2022. More from Deadline Donald Trump Files Suit Against Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones Over Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Epstein Story Adam Schiff Talks Of Donald Trump's "Climate Of Fear" In 'Late Show' Guest Appearance; Senate Democrats Raise Questions Of CBS Cancellation - Update Late-Night TV Is On The Precipice After CBS Axes Stephen Colbert; Insiders Lament "End Of An Era" U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe ruled, among other things, that Trump's legal claim does not 'plausibly allege' that he was the joint author of The Trump Tapes or has a copyright interest in them. Trump had claimed that even though he played no role in coming up with the questions, he had a copyright interest in the responses, the judge noted. The judge wrote that 'The Supreme Court has instructed, under the Copyright Act, 'the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.'' Trump had cited a Feb. 28, 2023 copyright registration he obtained, where he was designated as the joint author with Woodward. But the judge wrote that 'while copyright registration may constitute prema facie evidence of ownership, where there are conflicting and adverse copyright registrations, the Copyright Office does not resolve the competing claims, and courts are called upon to make 'an independent determination of copyright ownership.' Woodward and Simon & Schuster had a copyright registration from Feb. 23, 2023. The judge will allow Trump to amend his complaint, with a deadline of Aug. 18. But he wrote that he found it 'unlikely' that Trump would be able to plead a 'plausible' copyright interest in The Trump Tapes. Paramount Global sold Simon & Schuster to KKR in 2023, but the company remained a defendant in the case. Trump went on to sue Paramount Global shortly before the 2024 election, over the way that CBS News' 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris. Paramount Global reached a $16 million settlement with Trump earlier this month, even though its attorneys had previously called the president's lawsuit without merit. The company is seeking Trump administration approval of its merger with Skydance. Best of Deadline Streamer Subscription Prices And Tiers – Everything To Know As Costs Rise And Ads Abound (Hello, Peacock) - Update 'Stick' Release Guide: When Do New Episodes Come Out? 'Stick' Soundtrack: All The Songs You'll Hear In The Apple TV+ Golf Series

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store